Should polygamy be legal?

by **Screensaver** » Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:28 pm

Do you think that a man or a woman should be legally allowed to have multiple spouses? I don't think that polygamy should be legal. My reasoning behind that is because a polygamous relationship can cause complications for children that are brought up in polygamous families. Experts agree with that statement that polygamous marriages aren't good for the mental health of the children brought up in the marriages. In addition to that there are also many social problems caused by polygamy as well and there are documented negative effects on even some of the spouses involved in polygamous marriages. Of course I shall provide my sources. Please read my sources before you state your opinion.

http://www.academia.edu/175877/The_Problem_of_Polygamy

http://www.centives.net/S/2012/is-polyg ... ly-so-bad/

http://hollywoodlife.com/2010/09/24/is- ... iple-moms/

by **Zweite Alaje** » Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:31 pm

Sure, why not. As long as they aren't used simply for creating more orgies, by instead on facilitating a moral family structure.

by **Imperial--japan** » Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Yes Polygamy should be legal. I don't think the government should have a say in what/who, we can or can't marry.

by **Screensaver** » Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:44 pm

Imperial--japan wrote:Yes Polygamy should be legal. I don't think the government should have a say in what/who, we can or can't marry.

The government is there to maintain civil order and if you read my sources you would see the negative effects polygamy has on society. Therefore it is reasonable that the government should not allow it.

by **The Andrewtopian Republic** » Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:46 pm

I'm for taking the government out of marriage completely. I don't see anything harmful enough about polygamy to justify saying it's wrong or should be banned.

by **Condunum** » Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:47 pm

I don't believe for a second that there is any actual harm from polygamy.

by **Screensaver** » Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:47 pm

The Andrewtopian Republic wrote:I'm for taking the government out of marriage completely. I don't see anything harmful enough about polygamy to justify saying it's wrong or should be banned.

Thanks for reading the OP and the sources provided. -Sarcasm-

by **Bombadil** » Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:53 pm

Like many things of this nature, in an ideal, equal, free and thoughtful world I'm fine with it, in this world.. not so much

by **Imperial--japan** » Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:55 pm

Screensaver wrote:
Imperial--japan wrote:Yes Polygamy should be legal. I don't think the government should have a say in what/who, we can or can't marry.

The government is there to maintain civil order and if you read my sources you would see the negative effects polygamy has on society. Therefore it is reasonable that the government should not allow it.

Tl;Dr. It would be appreciated if you could perhaps summarize those in about one or two paragraphs.

When Polygamist marriage is resulting in abuse/law breaking/ etc, then the government can intervene then. My point still stands that is infringement on my civil rights to tell my who I can and cannot marry. If someone wants to have a second wife/husband then it would be ludicrous for the government to prohibit it because them being together would be 'detrimental to society' based on the governments opinion.

by **Screensaver** » Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:57 pm

Imperial--japan wrote:
Screensaver wrote:
The government is there to maintain civil order and if you read my sources you would see the negative effects polygamy has on society. Therefore it is reasonable that the government should not allow it.

Tl;Dr. It would be appreciated if you could perhaps summarize those in about one or two paragraphs.

When Polygamist marriage is resulting in abuse/law breaking/ etc, then the government can intervene then. My point still stands that is infringement on my civil rights to tell my who I can and cannot marry. If someone wants to have a second wife/husband then it would be ludicrous for the government to prohibit it because them being together would be 'detrimental to society' based on the governments opinion.

No it is based on fact and statistics. Do you know how to read? I suggest you read the sources I provided.

by **Imperial--japan** » Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:59 pm

Screensaver wrote:
Imperial--japan wrote:Tl;Dr. It would be appreciated if you could perhaps summarize those in about one or two paragraphs.

When Polygamist marriage is resulting in abuse/law breaking/ etc, then the government can intervene then. My point still stands that is infringement on my civil rights to tell my who I can and cannot marry. If someone wants to have a second wife/husband then it would be ludicrous for the government to prohibit it because them being together would be 'detrimental to society' based on the governments opinion.

No it is based on fact and statistics. Do you know how to read? I suggest you read the sources I provided.

I'd beg to differ. I suggest you provide a source that doesn't require me to download it.

by **Screensaver** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:00 am

Imperial--japan wrote:
Screensaver wrote:
No it is based on fact and statistics. Do you know how to read? I suggest you read the sources I provided.

I'd beg to differ. I suggest you provide a source that doesn't require me to download it.

You can ignore the download option on the first source and just read it as is.

by **Bombadil** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:02 am

Screensaver wrote:No it is based on fact and statistics. Do you know how to read? I suggest you read the sources I provided.

Well sort of, in the sense that it's not too dissimilar to saying 'rates of suicide among teenage homosexuals is higher than average* is a fact, then drawing the conclusion that homosexuality is bad - as opposed to contextualising it in the fact that those rates are a result of society's attitudes on the issue over the issue itself.

Children may suffer greater rates of depression within polygamous marriage but the study says only that it may be due to decreased attention - which sounds a conclusion based on pre-held opinion.

Mostly I do agree, however, with the point that polygamy inherently leads to inequality, whichever way.

*I don't know if that's at all true, just making the point.

by **Ceannairceach** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:13 am

Assuming all the legal nonsense was sorted out and the legality was noted to include both sexes, sure, why not.

by **Regnum Dominae** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:18 am

I support the Libertarian Party's stance on this, which is that marriage should be valid for any number of people, regardless of gender, number, or any other factor besides consent.

I don't support marriage equality.
I support marriage freedom.

Fellow Freedom Fighters,

Decades ago, Libertarians started fighting for marriage equality. And while the legal battle for that is still up in the air, the hearts and minds battle for that has been won. Look at the sea of red equal signs all over Facebook and the 100% approval rating for gay marriage among people under 40. The political experts are right: the bigoted Republican social agenda has been soundly rejected. And although Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, and Barack Obama opposed gay marriage until it was politically expedient not to, the Democratic Party has "conveniently" decided to make Marriage Equality one of their issues. Whether it happens state by state or all at once, gay marriage will become a reality in America. A few people will cling to their bigoted pasts, and perhaps over time they, too, will come around if we treat them with patience and respect.

But our work is far from done. With marriage equality, we went from "one size fits all" to "two sizes fit all." That's a good step. But one, two, or three types of marriage is not enough. Every person is unique. Every relationship is unique. And the government's clunky meddling in marriage only blockades people from finding better ways to make their marriages and relationships work. (And as a quick FYI: Before opposing marriage, bigots opposed any kind of gay relationships. The great mathematician Alan Turing was one of the people whose lives were ruined by governmental intrusion into people's private lives, in his case in England.)

It's time for the next phase: Marriage Freedom. While equality is a step in the right direction, it is not the final goal. Marriage Freedom means getting the government entirely out of marriage. It means allowing men, women, and intersex individuals to freely create the relationships, practices, and contracts that work for them. It means marital innovation. It means happiness.

Marriage Equality took over 30 years to become a reality. Marriage Freedom may take another 30.

That work has already started.

by **Algonquin Ascendancy** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:18 am

Screensaver wrote:Do you think that a man or a woman should be legally allowed to have multiple spouses? I don't think that polygamy should be legal. My reasoning behind that is because a polygamous relationship can cause complications for children that are brought up in polygamous families. Experts agree with that statement that polygamous marriages aren't good for the mental health of the children brought up in the marriages. In addition to that there are also many social problems caused by polygamy as well and there are documented negative effects on even some of the spouses involved in polygamous marriages. Of course I shall provide my sources. Please read my sources before you state your opinion.

http://www.academia.edu/175877/The_Problem_of_Polygamy

http://www.centives.net/S/2012/is-polyg ... ly-so-bad/

http://hollywoodlife.com/2010/09/24/is- ... iple-moms/

Yes, I do. I see no reason to restrict someone from being able to marry the ones they love if they are polyamorous.

by **Tubbsalot** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:19 am

Obviously there are potential problems with legalising polygamy, but I don't see that it's possible in any modern society for a polygamous marriage to be any less healthy than a monogamous marriage could be.

Screensaver wrote:The government is there to maintain civil order and if you read my sources you would see the negative effects polygamy has on society.

Screensaver wrote:Thanks for reading the OP and the sources provided. -Sarcasm-

Screensaver wrote:No it is based on fact and statistics. Do you know how to read? I suggest you read the sources I provided.

"Hey guys here's a discussion question for you: should polygamy be legal? I don't think it should be."
"I disagree with you."
"um WHATEVER you illiterate boor, did you even READ my RIGOROUS FACTS AND SOURCES???? NO I DIDN'T THINK SO, cause if you did you wouldn't have disagreed with me!!! you piece of shit"

by **Condunum** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:26 am

Tubbsalot wrote:Obviously there are potential problems with legalising polygamy, but I don't see that it's possible in any modern society for a polygamous marriage to be any less healthy than a monogamous marriage could be.

Screensaver wrote:The government is there to maintain civil order and if you read my sources you would see the negative effects polygamy has on society.
Screensaver wrote:Thanks for reading the OP and the sources provided. -Sarcasm-
Screensaver wrote:No it is based on fact and statistics. Do you know how to read? I suggest you read the sources I provided.

"Hey guys here's a discussion question for you: should polygamy be legal? I don't think it should be."
"I disagree with you."
"um WHATEVER you illiterate boor, did you even READ my RIGOROUS FACTS AND SOURCES???? NO I DIDN'T THINK SO, cause if you did you wouldn't have disagreed with me!!! you piece of shit"

ITT typical new OP behavior.

by **Anachronous Rex** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:26 am

It's not my business what consenting adults get up to.

by **The New Great Imperial Order** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:52 am

After reading the documents provided I am going to say that I am now opposed to polygamy.

by **Absurdity** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:53 am

No, and a heavy polygamist tax should be imposed on polygamists who somehow manage to get married.

by **Condunum** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:57 am

Absurdity wrote:No, and a heavy polygamist tax should be imposed on polygamists who somehow manage to get married.

Your name is fitting.

by **Nortear** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:01 am

I believe polygamy should be legal, but it shouldn't be one person having multiple spouses: each member of the marriage is married to all other members of the marriage.

by **The New Great Imperial Order** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:04 am

Nortear wrote:I believe polygamy should be legal, but it shouldn't be one person having multiple spouses: each member of the marriage is married to all other members of the marriage.

That sounds like something that would happen in porn.

by **Nortear** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:10 am

The New Great Imperial Order wrote:
Nortear wrote:I believe polygamy should be legal, but it shouldn't be one person having multiple spouses: each member of the marriage is married to all other members of the marriage.

That sounds like something that would happen in porn.

Thank you for the compliment. I meant that in the sense of equality, instead of one person gathering a collection of spouses.
Of course, I guess there should be a only married to certain people of the marriage, in case there's one you really don't like... maybe marriage should be abolished as a legal contract, and only remain as a social union that is not recorded nor administrated by the government?